Action Center Proof-UI: Better explaining reasons for Turbonomic's resource decisions, especially cluster scaling

If Turbonomic generates host provision actions the risk listed in the pending actions widget or in the action center is e.g. named "Clone <host name> on cloned ...". This is not the risk why Turbonomic has decided for a cluster scaling. The reason is a resource congestion in the cluster e.g. a VMem congestion. This shall be named as the risk/reason.

In addition to that, the provision actions are related to only some of the hosts even if more than these hosts are congested. Cluster scaling is in fact a cluster not host related action. Maybe the cluster need to be a separate entity which would also allows to consider the cluster in the market as entity with own policies (see https://ideas.ibm.com/ideas/TURBO-I-251). This leads to the fact that the host status is displayed incorrectly in the supply chain. Any congested host shall be display in red, independent of the fact that this host was chosen "to be cloned" as stated in the host provision action. 

In addition to that the host provision actions are name "performance" actions, but maybe are more "compliance" action, because the physical hosts are not really congested but do not comply with the given HA policies, but changing the category would also require to separate the host from the cluster entity. A host with 80% VMEM utilization in a stretched cluster is not necessarily a bad think if the cluster utilization is still below 50% (see also idea https://ideas.ibm.com/ideas/TURBO-I-251).

On top of a cluster scaling actions, Turbonomic also should be highlighting VMs who need to scale up, but are blocked due to the provision host action(s) (see idea https://ideas.ibm.com/ideas/TURBO-I-577).

Customer example to outline the status quo and reason for this enhancement request (See anonymized screenshots attached):

There is an eight node stretched cluster, where all host are using more than the allowed 50% of their capacity. Thus Turbonomic has generated 6 provision actions, but only two hosts are displayed red because those actions are just related to these two hosts while all eight hosts are congested. We need to separate the status from the actions generated in my eyes, to properly reflect the host status as nobody can easily understand why the actions where just generated for those two. In addition to that none of the actions refer to the host congestion (a VMEM congestion in this case) they just state: "Clone <host name> on cloned ..." which is not a risk in my eyes.